ORDER S. S. Jha, J. 1. This petition is filed challenging the Award passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court No. 1. Gwalior under the Industrial Disputes Act, on a reference by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'). 2. Respondent Rajveer Singh was appointed as a technician with the petitioner- institute. Respondent Rajveer Singh is an industrial workman who served between the period from November 16, 1981 to June 14, 1986. His services were satisfactory. On account of personal annoyance, the respondent was served with a charge-sheet on November 8, 1985. Thereafter, a domestic inquiry was conducted by Shri Chandra Shekhar Dixit, Advocate. It is alleged that Shri Chandra Shekhar Dixit, Advocate is a friend of founder Director of the petitioner-Institute. The respondent was removed from service on the basis of inquiry report. It was alleged that the domestic inquiry was conducted in a most unfair manner and the respoident-workman was not afforded an opportunity to lead evidence, and his termination from service is bad in law. 3. The Presiding Officer found that the inquiry conducted by the Management is proper and there is no infirmity in the inquiry. After holding that the inquiry is proper, the Presiding Officer has proceeded to determine whether the quantum of punishment is adequate? The Presiding Officer found that the quantum of punishment is severe and is not commensurate with the nature of allegation levied against the respondent-workman. The Presiding Officer directed reinstatement of the respondent without back wages. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that once it is held that the charges are proved and inquiry was conducted in a proper manner, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that since the case was for considering the conduct of inquiry and not on the quantum of punishment, therefore, after holding that the inquiry is proper, interference by the Labour Court in the quantum of punishment without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, is uncalled for. 5. I have perused the record of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. 6. After reference, the case was registered and issues were framed on June 7, 1988. Then the case was fixed for evidence of the first party on January 7, 1989. 5. I have perused the record of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. 6. After reference, the case was registered and issues were framed on June 7, 1988. Then the case was fixed for evidence of the first party on January 7, 1989. Then the case was adjourned to February 28, 1999, March 13, 1989 and on various dates. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence on August 29, 1989 and then the case was adjourned on various dates. Then on December 22, 1989 the Presiding Officer ordered that the parties should lead evidence on issue No. 1 only and the case was fixed for recording evidence of both the parties. The parties concluded their evidence on issue No. 1 only. After the evidence on issue No. 1, the award was passed. 7. Issue No. 1 framed by the Labour Court was regarding validity of removal of the workman. Additional issues were framed on November 25, 1993 and the case was fixed for arguments on the issue regarding domestic inquiry. The case was fixed after protracted hearings, for orders on March 22, 1994. On March 22, 1994 order was not passed and the case was fixed for April 25, 1994. No order was passed on April 25, 1994 and the case was adjourned to May 28, 1994. Since the order was not ready, the case was adjourned to June 25, 1994 and was adjourned on various dates, but the order was not passed. The case was again fixed for argument after the new Presiding Officer joined. The case was being adjourned for hearing on Issue No. 3 only and while hearing arguments on Issue Nos. 1 and 3, the Award was passed. Issue No. 3 relates to nature of domestic inquiry. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the Labour Court is not proper. If arguments were heard on Issue No. 3, then also the Labour Court could not have passed the Award. 9. On perusal of the record, it is found that the evidence was also recorded on other issues, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the order was passed on issue No. 3 only. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in such case where the misconduct as also damage caused to the machinery is proved, it is not a fit case where order of reinstatement could be passed. 10. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in such case where the misconduct as also damage caused to the machinery is proved, it is not a fit case where order of reinstatement could be passed. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment in the case of The Binny Limited v. Workmen, AIR 1973 SC 1403 and submitted that once the employer has lost confidence in the workman who fails to resume his duties when he is intimated, it will not be proper to reinstate him and order of removal ought to have been affirmed on payment of some damages. Learned counsel submitted that the Labour Court is vested with powers under Section 11A of the Act to award lesser punishment, but this power should not be unguided (sic), unchannelised or arbitrary. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner then referred to another judgment in the case of State of A.P v. Shri Rama Rao, AIR 1973 SC 1723 : 1964-II-LLJ-150, and submitted that once in the departmental inquiry it is found that the misconduct is proved, the High tourt cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the findings and the evidence could not be reviewed by the High Court. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to another judgment in the case of Punjab Dairy Development Ltd v. Kala Singh, AIR 1997 SC 2661 : 1997-II-LLJ-1041, and submitted that once the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the misconduct is proved against the workman and his dismissal was justifiable, the management also losing confidence that workman would faithfully carry on his duties, in view of the proof of misconduct, the Labour Court was justified in refusing to exercise powers under Section 11A of the Act for reinstatement. The order of reinstatement was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Reliance was also placed on the case of Chembur Co-op. Industrial Estate Ltd. v. M.K. Ckattra, AIR 1975 SC 1725 : 1975-II-LLJ-357 wherein it is held that after recording a finding that the workman had forfeited confidence of employer, his reinstatement was not justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the judgment in the case of I.T.C. Factory, Monghyr v. Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 1423. In this case it is found that the workman was wrongfully dismissed, therefore, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was granted by the Supreme Court and Rs. Learned counsel for the petitioner then relied upon the judgment in the case of I.T.C. Factory, Monghyr v. Labour Court, AIR 1978 SC 1423. In this case it is found that the workman was wrongfully dismissed, therefore, compensation in lieu of reinstatement was granted by the Supreme Court and Rs. 30,000 was paid to the workman towards compensation. 13. In the case of Rohtas Industries Ltd. v. Workmen represented by Rohtas Industries Mazdoor Sangh, AIR 1977 SC 1867 , the question of renisal of opportunity to opposite party to examine witnesses was considered. However, in the present case, there is no refusal of opportunity to examine witnesses. 14. Counsel for the respondent No. 1 placed reliance on a judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, 1977 (3) SCC 321 : 1997-II-LLJ-1039). This case relates to relief wrongly given to others cannot be claimed. 15. Considering the facts of the case, it is apparent that the provisions of Section 11A of the Act empowers the Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment, but this power should be exercised judicially on the nature of misconduct. 16. In the present case, it is alleged that the respondent who was working as a technician in the Cobalt Unit of the petitioner-Institute had damaged the machinery. The Cobalt machinery is being used for giving chemotherapy to Cancer patients. In the present case, it is found that from the nature of allegations levelled against the workman, the Management has lost confidence in the workman. Though the Labour Court has assigned reasons for interfering with the quantum of punishment, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the management has lost confidence in the workman-respondent, it will be proper if the direction of reinstatement is modified to quantum of damages to the respondent-workman, and the payment of damages to the tune of Rs. two lacs to the respondent No. 1 workman by the petitioner will be justified, 17. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent No. 1 Rajveer Singh. On payment of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs, the order of reinstatement of respondent No. 1 shall stand set aside. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not pay compensation of Rs. It is, therefore, directed that the petitioner shall pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent No. 1 Rajveer Singh. On payment of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs, the order of reinstatement of respondent No. 1 shall stand set aside. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not pay compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the respondent No. 1 Rajveer Singh within a period of one month, then the respondent No. 1 Rajveer Singh shall be liable for reinstatement and grant of back wages from the date of his reinstatement. 18.